Summary:Published in 1953, Casino Royale was the first James Bond novel by Ian Fleming. The film, starring Daniel Craig as the legendary 007, introduces audiences to James Bond before he holds his license to kill and proceeds with a high-stakes adventure.

Relaunches the series by doing something I wouldn't have thought possible: It turns Bond into a human being again -- a gruffly charming yet volatile chap who may be the swank king stud of the Western world, but who still has room for rage, fear, vulnerability, love.

Craig, excellent in both art house endeavors (The Mother, Enduring Love) and blockbuster think pieces (Munich), has both a nasty streak and a soft side never before seen in the series; Fleming would recognize him as most like his literary creation: damaged goods in a tailored tux.

Casino Royale marks a shrewd relaunching of a franchise. But Campbell and company show too much of their sweat. If these movies continue to follow Fleming's profane pilgrim's progress, the next Bond movies should be more emotional and funny, with a bit of brass-knuckled charm.

The best bond movie ever, without question. The goofiness of the old bond movies are gone. The portrayl of death makes the largest change inThe best bond movie ever, without question. The goofiness of the old bond movies are gone. The portrayl of death makes the largest change in this movie. Bond no long kills people like cartoon characters, he murders them brutally. Enough good things cannot be said about this movie, you simply must go see it. Bond is recreated and is better than ever. And all you closet cases out there need to get over the entire Daniel Craig not being pretty thing. I'm sure he can get a lot more pussy then you.…Expand

More realistic than the previous Bond movies which have been too much like cartoons. Daniel Craig does a great job as Bond and the story and More realistic than the previous Bond movies which have been too much like cartoons. Daniel Craig does a great job as Bond and the story and intro are great.…Expand

Easily one of the best, is not the best, Bond films since the days of Connery. The dark and gritty tones are a welcome change of pace, andEasily one of the best, is not the best, Bond films since the days of Connery. The dark and gritty tones are a welcome change of pace, and the story still manages to infuse humor in the right places, and in my opinion also in the right quantity. Easy 10.…Expand

A captivating portrayal of Mr. Bond. While many elements of the film took a turn for the grittier, actually seeing Bond at true moments of A captivating portrayal of Mr. Bond. While many elements of the film took a turn for the grittier, actually seeing Bond at true moments of weakness was a breath of fresh air. Daniel Craig played the character quite well. There were several lines which made me groan (most by Eva Green's character Vesper), but for the most part the film stepped away from the cliche'd dialogue so relentlessly present in all other 007 flicks. A+.…Expand

What a return for Bond, what a debut in the franchise for Daniel Craig. The movie is excellent, dramatic set pieces, tension building plot What a return for Bond, what a debut in the franchise for Daniel Craig. The movie is excellent, dramatic set pieces, tension building plot and clever scripting. This only misses a strong 9 due to slightly overlong love story in the last third of the film. Craig is genius, bettering Brosnan's comic caricature of Bond. His physical presence, charm and wit mean the chases flow, fight scenes crunch like no bond before, and his vocal sparring with enemies and love interests is as sharp as knives. Gone is the Brosnan-Moore cheese fest, a new era of Bond has finally arrived to save the legend!…Expand

Sure, its a very good reboot but the film has two serious problems that trip up its shot at being the definitive Bond flick -for a Bond fan Sure, its a very good reboot but the film has two serious problems that trip up its shot at being the definitive Bond flick -for a Bond fan of course. First, Daniel Craig is good, puts in a superb effort and is wonderfully darker but is really not what the character merits. Tux him up to the hilt and he still looks and acts more KGB than MI6, more Spetsnaz than Oxbridge toff. The 'working man's Bond' is a problem, especially after Brosnan. Second, by stripping down and subverting every Bond trope - even if it be to pretty good effect too - the film melts the glue that always bonded. Bond is about as real world as Willy Wonka. The Bourne Identity the film can never be. Simply being different, with respect to an admittedly tired formula, makes a movie interesting and good, not great.…Expand

Im not sure where all these "A" reviews came from...it truly baffles me! If anyone out there is a true Bond fan, there is no way in hell that Im not sure where all these "A" reviews came from...it truly baffles me! If anyone out there is a true Bond fan, there is no way in hell that this movie could be appreciated. Daniel Craig is the worst Bond I have ever seen...I think the people that casted him were on crack. Everyone knows 007 is a tall, dark hair, sophisticated, sauve gentlemen. Daniel Craig looks like a beaten up english pauper. This movie was absolutely rubbish. The storyline did not make sense, nor did it flow well at all. Even the opening song was lousy. From the very get go, it was straight up action, with very little dialogue, and feeble storyline. This is an insult to Mr. Sean Connery...the greatest, and only true Bond...…Expand